A reader names his favourite, and least favourite, video game worlds and examines what differentiates a Steelport from a Liberty City.

What makes the Mushroom Kingdom great? What makes San Andreas a place worth being in? Where is the line between success and failure in building the worlds that we play in? Well, let’s have a look…

My personal favourite setting in a single video game is Legend Of Zelda: Majora’s Mask. And I would break down its effectiveness into five categories: art design, imagination, exploration, affection, and uniqueness. I love Termina’s art design and it is full of imagination – an angry moon that will kill everybody, a psychedelic, Dreamstone-style observatory and giant towers that you can turn upside down to name but a few. Imagination and art design are closely linked, I feel, but a game can be imaginative and still have poor art design. More on that later.

Exploration is another feature. A game’s setting should both encourage and reward it. BioWare games are terrible in this respect but Majora’s Mask is excellent, as is of course something like Skyrim.

Affection is the most subjective quality and refers to how much you care about the world and its people. I have nothing but the greatest affection for Termina and her people. It is the most I have ever cared for any cast of characters – from being hugged by Cremia to being the only one to notice the ignored soldier as he sat alone outside Clock Town’s massive walls. Hell, after the moon problems, I wouldn’t even mind living there!

Uniqueness is something that only really matters to fantasy games. The likes of Skyrim and Dragon Age are not at all unique. Usually Zelda isn’t all that unique either, sharing the same love of medieval Europe as seemingly every Western developer. But Termina’s a bit different. Though it isn’t as organic as Ocarina Of Time’s Hyrule and feels very much stitched together, it is that very quality that helps Termina feel unique. If only for Clock Town’s very mechanical nature alone.

But like I said, in something like Bully or Grand Theft Auto V, whether the setting is unique or not is irrelevant. The selling point in such games is being able to do outrageous things in familiar settings. But both those masterpieces still have a lot of imagination, great art design – though that too is very subjective – and encourage and reward exploration immensely.

But let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Steelport from Saints Row: The Third and IV is a very weak setting. The art design is very ugly, it never feels worth exploring and I certainly couldn’t care less for the place. And you did feel, for the latest instalment, Volition realised this too. Because Saints Row IV had lots of imaginative set pieces. But they all took place in either Tron-style virtual reality zones or in the various other simulations outside Steelport. Of course, we’ll never hear Volition admit that, but I think they know.

I never liked Fallout 3’s Capitol Wasteland either, for similar reasons. Relentlessly ugly, I cared nothing for the awful place. ‘Oh but that’s the point!’ I hear you wail. You may even compare it to Silent Hill 2. But you don’t stay in Silent Hill for as long as you do the Capitol Wasteland and I feel you should love being in a role-player’s world. But of course, the setting is very unique, imaginative and being a Bethesda game, it facilitates exploration incredibly well so I can see why others love it.

So now I ask you, fair readers – what worlds do you love and why do you love them?

By reader DMR

The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.